Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
A poll for all those dedicated to the "crazy machine" as Patrick Henry called the Constitution.
the full choices can be viewed at this link Outline of a new Constitution US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum
;icture gallery
http://www.usmessageboard.com/data/photos/l/3/3253-1410290376-fa654ec9680947d3ac5ea494f9fe9768.jpg
None of the above.
thats nots an option
That guy would probably repeal the constitution and go back to the articles.
Wrong, I would enforce the Constitution as written, not as interpreted by politicians and their appointees.
A poll for all those dedicated to the "crazy machine" as Patrick Henry called the Constitution.
the full choices can be viewed at this link Outline of a new Constitution US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum
;icture gallery
http://www.usmessageboard.com/data/photos/l/3/3253-1410290376-fa654ec9680947d3ac5ea494f9fe9768.jpg
A single 10-year term so politicians don't have to suck up or respond to polls worrying about re-election. If you can't get things done in 10 years you're in the wrong line of work anyway. After the 10 years is up, you're out, period.
None of the above.
thats nots an option
That guy would probably repeal the constitution and go back to the articles.
Wrong, I would enforce the Constitution as written, not as interpreted by politicians and their appointees.
unrealistic....someone has to interpret what it means...my proposal makes sure the politicians have less say
The welfare clause should be eliminated. So should the commerce clause.Probably make the welfare cause clearer to keep up with the times and end all argument. This would give the congress the power without question to fund science institutions, infrastructure and help the states in case of emergency. All things we already do and every one else already does.
what guy...who you talking aboutNone of the above.
thats nots an option
That guy would probably repeal the constitution and go back to the articles.
The one you replied too.he doesn't believe the federal government should be able to tax.
None of the above.
thats nots an option
That guy would probably repeal the constitution and go back to the articles.
Wrong, I would enforce the Constitution as written, not as interpreted by politicians and their appointees.
unrealistic....someone has to interpret what it means...my proposal makes sure the politicians have less say
No they don't need anything but a dictionary from the time it was written to understand exactly what it says, no interpretation needed.
Nonsense.The Constitution is in no need of 'change,' however 'least objectionable.'
The Constitution is the culmination of centuries of Anglo-American judicial tradition dating back to the Magna Carta and the Assizes of Henry II, it didn't just 'happen' in 1791.
The 'changes' proposed are reckless and unwarranted, the stuff of partisan curmudgeons, reactionaries, and capricious nitwits ignorant of the fact that the Constitution is first and foremost a document of the law – the supreme law of the land – and the cornerstone of the rule of law, not a mere 'blueprint of government.'
bulllllshit ....
you know, dunces like you never have real criticisms....you just worship the past ...........and think that is some sort of argument.
Reckless and unwarranted?.....then tell me why.....we still would have had rule of law with the articles....we still would have rule of law with my proposed changes....you have no argument.
The idiotic notion of 'national referenda' is alone completely contrary to the rule of law.
And who decides what the criteria are to determine a 'qualified' Supreme Court justice – your proposed 'changes' are inane, sophomoric, and ridiculous; nothing more than a rightwing temper-tantrum because you disapprove of Constitutional jurisprudence you incorrectly perceive to be 'wrong.'
All those options bring more government, not less. I would cut down the number of representatives to create proportional representation.
Makes more sense to devolve more power to states, rather than bother with national referendums, which could just as easily damage civil rights and republic as improve it.
10,000? That's a Black Eyed Peas concert, not a legislative body.All those options bring more government, not less. I would cut down the number of representatives to create proportional representation.
Makes more sense to devolve more power to states, rather than bother with national referendums, which could just as easily damage civil rights and republic as improve it.
The more representatives there are, the harder they are to bribe. When you're one of 435 representatives, a big corporation can make contributions to all their campaigns and have significant influence on legislation. If there were 10,000 representatives, that would be much more expensive.
thats nots an option
That guy would probably repeal the constitution and go back to the articles.
Wrong, I would enforce the Constitution as written, not as interpreted by politicians and their appointees.
unrealistic....someone has to interpret what it means...my proposal makes sure the politicians have less say
No they don't need anything but a dictionary from the time it was written to understand exactly what it says, no interpretation needed.
Did they have Dictionaries back then? I thought Daniel Webster wrote the first one.
Yep, and Bripat under-rates the wealth of corporations and lobby groups, doesn't matter whether it is 1 or 100,000 they can find a way.10,000? That's a Black Eyed Peas concert, not a legislative body.All those options bring more government, not less. I would cut down the number of representatives to create proportional representation.
Makes more sense to devolve more power to states, rather than bother with national referendums, which could just as easily damage civil rights and republic as improve it.
The more representatives there are, the harder they are to bribe. When you're one of 435 representatives, a big corporation can make contributions to all their campaigns and have significant influence on legislation. If there were 10,000 representatives, that would be much more expensive.
Since the second amendment is no longer relevant to its intended purpose we should drop it and leave gun rights up to the states to decide
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
Militias are not necessary to the security of our state. We have the strongest Army in the world. Time to drop the second amendment
Since the second amendment is no longer relevant to its intended purpose we should drop it and leave gun rights up to the states to decide
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
Militias are not necessary to the security of our state. We have the strongest Army in the world. Time to drop the second amendment
Why not the 1st as well? Progressives don't seem to have much use for that one either.
Since the second amendment is no longer relevant to its intended purpose we should drop it and leave gun rights up to the states to decide
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
Militias are not necessary to the security of our state. We have the strongest Army in the world. Time to drop the second amendment
Why not the 1st as well? Progressives don't seem to have much use for that one either.
No reason to repeal the first, we use it every day
We have not relied on Militias for our security in 100 years
Since we no longer need militias, lets change the Constitution to leave gun ownership up to the individual statesSince the second amendment is no longer relevant to its intended purpose we should drop it and leave gun rights up to the states to decide
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
Militias are not necessary to the security of our state. We have the strongest Army in the world. Time to drop the second amendment
Why not the 1st as well? Progressives don't seem to have much use for that one either.
No reason to repeal the first, we use it every day
We have not relied on Militias for our security in 100 years
Its not the people's fault the States no longer call upon the militia, the right to keep and bear arms is still theirs.
None of the above.
thats nots an option
That guy would probably repeal the constitution and go back to the articles.
Wrong, I would enforce the Constitution as written, not as interpreted by politicians and their appointees.
unrealistic....someone has to interpret what it means...my proposal makes sure the politicians have less say
No they don't need anything but a dictionary from the time it was written to understand exactly what it says, no interpretation needed.
